Reviews

MASS is an exercise in masterfully-written dialogue carrying a high concept otherwise less suited for a feature-length film, and it deserves the accolades it's gotten in spite of requiring some tenacity to sit through.

THE GOOD: It's the dialogue, really, the steals the show on this one. Few writers could sit four actors down at a table for ninety percent of the film and hold an audience's attention, but Fran Kranz pulls it off.

THE BAD: Its brilliance is embedded in its achilles heel, and that's the lack of motion. Outside of a brief setup and minor late act, there's just nothing kinetic to keep things moving.

THE UGLY: I can't justify calling anything ugly about this wonderfully conceived and executed film.

CONCLUSION: It's a long haul at a languid pace, but the writing and tone make it worth ninety minutes of your time.

BELFAST is a moving period piece set during a child's idyllic youth interrupted with the street violence of hooligan factions during civil unrest in 1960s Northern Ireland, but despite wonderful performances by its cast, the film fails to capitalize on its own premises.

THE GOOD: Performances are stellar. Jamie Dornan and Judi Dench are standouts, and young Jude Hill is thoroughly captivating as Buddy. A heartfelt, fully owned ensemble makes this whole affair watchable.

THE BAD: The film's premise is centered on sectarian violence between warring religious factions, but we never come close to a payoff there, only seeing a blocked off street and the occasional angry interlopers to remind us there's a fray at hand.

THE UGLY: The production decision to present in black-and-white with the out outward-in color insertions was as pretentious a choice as I've seen in quite some time.

CONCLUSION: If you've nothing else to do with your Saturday night, by all means give this a watch, but you may find yourself wishing you'd made plans instead.

ELVIS is a Baz Luhrman movie through-and-through, and that means dizzying production design, colorful human menageries, and lots of glam, but ultimately it's the characters themselves that fail to land.

THE GOOD: Luhrman's design is overwhelming, but that's the kind of glitz needed to showcase the rhinestone-studded Butler, whose nomination for Best Actor is well deserved.

THE BAD: Cinematographer Mandy Walker swung for the fences with this one when she should've bunted. The mania was too much to follow.

THE UGLY: Tom Hanks is a tremendous character actor but he missed with this one.

CONCLUSION: Worth seeing from the back of a stranger's seat on a long international flight, but ultimately forgettable.

BANSHEES OF INISHERIN is an exercise in sadness, nihilism, and existential despair weighed against the nodes of meaning, played out in Irish sheep country. It's a bleak affair, but darkly humorous - the exact fare McDonough has become known for.

THE GOOD: this is a character driven film, and few character pieces feature the sort of chemistry that Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson display here.

THE BAD: A bit too self-aware at times, its maudlin moments occasionally bleed over into the absurd.

THE UGLY: The hardly a detracting element - in fact, it adds to the story's commentary on existentialism and despair - there are some, er... gratuitous moments in here that perhaps drive the points home harder than necessary. No spoilers, but you'll know it when you see it.

CONCLUSION: Perhaps Martin McDonough's best work, and top five for both Farrell and Gleeson. A must-watch.

ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT is a brutal affair that somehow manages to leave room for poignancy and elude the standard war-movie-fare that dooms so many efforts at saying something real about the human condition.

THE GOOD: Performances are compelling, in particular newcomer Felix Kammerer, and Daniel Bruhl is excellent as a peace negotiator whose juxtaposition with the ego of the German army commanders plays brilliantly the time-is-ticking intensity of an end we all see coming.

THE BAD: It is gruesome, it is war - the producers hammer this home quite well, almost TOO well, one might argue, moreso than necessary. Perhaps some ground isn't meant to be broken.

THE UGLY: There's nothing in this film that deserves a mention here, though, perhaps unavoidably by nature of an adaptation, it does struggle to keep its fabled ending out of the heads of viewers who can't help but see every twist right before it turns, all the way to the bitter end.

CONCLUSION: More than international Oscar fodder, it's perhaps the most compelling piece of German cinema this century, and more than worth a watch.

CONDOR'S NEST follows the vengeance quest of an American pilot who watched his crew get murdered by a Nazi and travels through South America killing tons of crazy Nazis to find him. There, that's the plot, and, basically, the entire movie. You're welcome.

THE GOOD: Character actors abound in this one, and they save what otherwise might be a particularly grim affair; every Nazi of significance is played by some talented folks ranging from Jackson Rathbone to Bruce Davison, providing a splash of color to the story.

THE BAD: Lead actor Jacob Keohane does a fine enough job, but finds himself buried by the personalities around him. There's no room for him to breathe emotionally, and we end up with a competent actor playing a one-note character.

THE UGLY: This is, very obviously, not shot in South America.

CONCLUSION: it's fairly entertaining, but if you're looking for Ben Hur you're going to wind up disappointed.

CRY MACHO is a movie about Clint Eastwood and a boy with a chicken named... Macho. It really doesn't get any better from there and is legitimately one of the worst movies I've ever seen, which as a forty-year fan of Clint Eastwood is a painful thing for me to say.

In fact, it's inspired me to flip my standard format and start off with the unseemly.

THE UGLY: All the bits where 90-year-old Clint Eastwood's sexual prowess is on display, from a vixen inexplicably throwing herself at him to a repetitive bit where a more soulful (but still half his age) woman falls for him. Unnecessary and awkward.

THE BAD: Eastwood suffers from atrocious writing and some exceptionally poor delivery from some of the early supporting cast.

THE GOOD: Eduardo Minett is alright.

Conclusion: Skip it and rewatch Gran Torino, which is better even a hundred times microwaved.

THE MENU is one of the better original concepts I've seen come from a studio in quite some time. A chef with a chip on his shoulder serves up nightmares to an audience held captive by the norms of ultra-fine-dining culture. However it falls flat in its execution.

THE GOOD: Ralph Fiennes is by far the best part of this movie. Nicholas Hoult and Anya-Taylor Joy are decent but not enough to compensate for a generally annoying cast (perhaps that's what they were going for?) and baffling choices that make taking the truthfulness of everyones' collective actions seriously.

THE BAD: This film is full of "why would they run to the dark basement full of scary stuff?!" moments: ridiculous choices made by otherwise truthful characters that leaves us questioning our already-suspended disbelief.

THE UGLY: Nothing is truly ugly here, and it keeps is guessing, but there's an element of schlock belied by the high budget and names but reified by the cheap silliness that it can't escape.

AMSTERDAM is a warm east wind from its opening scene: mellow, capricious, a thing to be enjoyed, not picked apart. Close your eyes and you can enjoy it, glue them open and pick it to death and you've destroyed the very things that make movies fun to watch. This film doesn't deserve the criticism it's received.

THE GOOD: Its star-studded cast leaves no stone unturned with its performances, which will muddled at times are entirely truthful and one of the stronger points. Note also a certain poignancy to the film which took some time to cultivate but really blossomed in the narrative's later acts.

THE BAD: The first, say, third of the movie feels divorced from the rest of it despite being an essential component of its development.

THE UGLY: Producers didn't make their money back due to screwball choices like casting Taylor Swift in a forgettable opening sequence, which benefitted no one.

CONCLUSION: See it, it's better than they say, but steel yourself for a rough ride before it smooths out.

Braveheart has aged like fine wine; almost thirty years after release it still holds up as an all-time classic.

THE GOOD: terrific storyline, compelling characters, Mel Gibson's acting still holds up despite some flimsy moments that could've turned cheesy in retrospect. And, of course, the production design is over the top and completely immersive.

THE BAD: The movie dates itself a bit, with female characters serving side roles. Their only source of agency in the plot is sleeping with men. A modern take on it would doubtlessly find a different through-line for the one woman (well, I guess there were two - how thoughtful!) gracing the screen as more than plot bait (sorry, Catherine.)

THE UGLY: No uglies. This movie's a classic and none of its faults are ugly enough to warrant coverage in this section.